Since there is a (reverse) corelation between ones lack of belief in supernatural and education, it would be interesting to find out if there isn't higher percentage of Atheists among pilots, guys serving ballistic missiles and reactors on subs, intelligence etc.
I didn't see one of these people in a foxhole. Looks like someone misunderstands the statement. Were you there as each one of these people closed in on deaths and saw that none of them turned to God for salvation? Maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but this video is dumb, because it's nothing more than poorly put together biased junk.
@MichaelCosta84 I'm an atheist and I was in a foxhole. I served in Afghanistan in the U.S Army along side many other atheist soldiers. I never turned to God for salvation.
Atheists are dishonest. They want you to believe based upon their worldview that man is the product of unguided, purposeless, random processes, and then at the same time they want you to sympathize for men who died in battle, who ultimately are just primates killing other primates. War is just evolution. So why should i shed a meaningless tear? for meaningless lives? You cant have your cake and eat it too! Atheist be consistent! Man is nothing according to you! Sin is real. Change position.
@Asperine3460 Shame on you for championing a worldview that teaches that these brave soldiers who died in battle are nothing more than soulless self replicating bi pedal hominids.
"Yes, very nice witnessing. I'm sure 700 Club is proud of you." You're a liar! Stop pretending like you care about witnessing. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. Atheism is an affront to god.
@ChuckyJesus666 chucky, I am against evil and against sin. I believe the world as it functions now will one day be totally changed. I believe in self defense, i also believe in peace and talking it out. In sharing. My opinion about war is incomplete at this point. In this world however perhaps there's an argument to be made that it is sometimes a necessary evil. I don't know if am a pacifist or not. I despised Hitler ideologies. Perhaps i would have enlisted to fight him.
@thesongtowoody Funny, except for the sin bit (you have to believe in a god to believe in the concept of sin), you and I have very similar views regarding war. Atheists despise Hitler as much as you do; so, if it's a just war we're talking about, there are both Christians and atheists out there fighting (and people of other faiths and viewpoints). The point of this video is simply to demonstrate that the old saying about there being no atheists in foxholes is false.
The only dishonesty shown are by those who claim to know what the mind of an invisible man in the sky wants....you my disillusioned friend fit the bill of a dishonest puppet.
The process of..."Natural selection" ( the mechanism of evolution )...came about without intention. It is ITSELF an "accident" therefore man, his life, his passions are all in the final analysis , POINTLESS and MEANINGLESS AND WITH NO SPECIAL VALUE. This conclusion is inescapable. If i am a sociopath its not bad OR good. Its natural !!!! It's evolution!!!! No! God is the intelligent designer. Ethics have an objective basis. God.
@noliesundead Nolie, I feel a bit sorry for you because you don't know that your conscious mind, intellect, heart, bears the likeness of the God who IS . You are not JUST a self replicating bi pedal hominid !!!!
Where you come from... tells you... who you ARE ....and gives you your WORTH.
@noliesundead Nolie, the shoe is on the other foot. Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion magically produced everything as we see it today... in its present form and structure with irreducible complexity must also have the predilection to believe in the boogieman too! You believe in fairy-tales and superstitious stories of fiction. How convenient for you to remove God from the equation so you can live as you choose?Be wise, Invest in something with a future. Cheers
@thesongtowoody " Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion"...and that's where i got to stop you, because you are not even citing the big bang theory correctly. you did not even stop to see if you were correct. only people who never bother to learn about the big bang says " unguided explosion."
"produced everything as we see it today"....thats not in the theory
"in its present form and structure"....that not in there either.
and irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist
@noliesundead Nolie, RE:"" Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion"...and that's where i got to stop you, because you are not even citing the big bang theory correctly. you did not even stop to see if you were correct."
You can slice the pie a million different ways...its still pie! So..i have it wrong. Ok. So it WAS guided! Thats what i've believe too! Put your cards on the table...was it guided or not? Fact or fairytales? Either / Or. I am citing it correctly and you wont answer me.
@thesongtowoody well you see that would be right, but your working with cake not pie buddy.
it is guide, by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry, ect, for some reason you think those things did not exist just cause it was long ago. and you seem to miss the main point. there was no explosion. and if you think god did it, explain where did god come from? you cant answer something with fantasy character. and nice job of showing humility and going to look up what you got wrong.
@noliesundead Nolie, the point i'm trying to make is that the word "guided" if broken down to its constituent parts reveals intelligence, intention, order and meaningful causal relationships that make possible the achievement of a final goal or effect. So i agree that the universe was "guided" to be what it is today and that Guidance came from a personal being who is the source ITSELF of all the academic disciplines of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, sociology etc Miraculous cosmos!
@noliesundead Nolie,RE: *** it is guided, by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry, ect*** That is a very very very simple statement that PRETENDS to sufficiently satisfy the demands of the question "how did everything get here in its present form and structure" and you accept it as sufficient and satisfactory but ignore the astronomical deficiency of the satisfactory nature of the answer to arrive at the universe as you experience it today. That answer is a fairytale and is no answer at ALL
@thesongtowoody again you can't state that until you prove god exist. now you are just repeating yourself, and if you do i will only reply with this statement again
@noliesundead Nolie RE:""produced everything as we see it today"....thats not in the theory" According to the materialistic worldview...there is an unbroken series of mechanisms that can be traced back from modern man, the present cosmos... all the way back to the big bang. According to that worldview all the potential for what we see today necessarily finds its origin in the explosion. Logic demands it. As i said... an unbroken regressive series from you to the big bang. Be honest . Please.
@thesongtowoody and that worldview as you call, can be backed up, have you been able to produce any evidence for irreducible complexity? and again NOT A EXPLOSION, you seem to be unable to figure that part out.
and potential and "produced everything as we see it today" are 2 very different phrases, but nice job at the back peddling
@noliesundead Nolie, RE : *and again NOT A EXPLOSION, you seem to be unable to figure that part out.* You are playing a game of semantics.
Is it because the word hints at the absurdity of the notion that everything could come from a big bang/explosion apart from purposive intentional creation?
You have a bias against any evidence that might point to intelligent design because you have a vested interest in denying the existence of God. You hate God.
@thesongtowoody You are playing a game of semantics....no, dont know the actually theory. You have a bias against any evidence that might point to intelligent design ....you have not presented any as on yet, so how can i have a bias?
how can i hate god? i dont even believe it to be real, that statement i akin to saying i pixies.
@thesongtowoody thank you for showing your complete ignorance of science. " How convenient for you to remove God from the equation so you can live as you choose?" unlike you, i do not need god to be a good person.
on a side note there exist proof for my beliefs, you rely on blind faith.
@noliesundead Nolie, RE: *unlike you, i do not need god to be a good person.* According to your definition of "good" you are right but according to God's definition you are wrong. According to God's definition you are in fact, bad. You have a natural proclivity to do evil. You have to measure your "goodness" against a higher standard of what it means to be GOOD and not a distorted definition. Convicts think they are "good" people too! Blind faith? No! Empirical evidence,experience and reason.
@noliesundead Nolie, It will be a challenge to present the evidence for the existence of God due to the limited room provided in these short "sound byte" posts. It is a subject that demands thorough investigation,time and analysis. It will take time and some of the arguments are quite sophisticated and open to critical analysis. My sober investigations lead me to believe the preponderance of the evidence points to a personal creator. With that said i will try nevertheless...
@noliesundead Here is one of maybe a thousand. The relationships between jewish old testament texts and the new testament record. When was the Septuagint written? Was it completed before the time of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes they were. check it yourself. Only God can know the future before it happens. The details of the crucifixion of christ are foretold in fine detail hundreds of years before the event and by a religious faith that has no vested interest in the propagation of Christianity.Fluke?
@thesongtowoody "The relationships between jewish old testament texts and the new testament"....well since the writers of the nt, have the old to go by, it's not convincing.
and there was no Nazareth in the time that Jesus was reported to live in.
"The details of the crucifixion of christ are foretold"....same refution as 1st statement, and name the verse that foretold it.
you really think early christian did not have vested interest in the propagation of Christianity? you're silly
@noliesundead RE *...show evidence for a god* Will a white Jury find a black man "not guilty" despite evidence he is not guilty? Maybe...
If i present you with persuasive evidence will you accept it? It IS possible to provide a rational defense of Christianity but that does not mean you will become a christian. See, believing in God, is not a intellectual issue...it is a MORAL issue. How can you be "good" if you willfully deny the existence of God?Unbelief is a moral issue not an intellectual 1.
@noliesundead You are making an unsupported assertion. Present your evidence the apostles fabricated the Gospel accounts? If they did ... wouldn't you think they’d recant just before they are crucified upside down for a lie espoused themselves or fed to lions?(hey guys just joking!)
You misread. I said the source, ie the JEWISH faith had no vested interest. The source of the prophecy is non christian but the christian events occurred!
" they lied!" prove it...The internal evidence is not thr
1. Investigate the question of "did the new testament writers fabricate the new testament" (increase the depth of your understanding of this question)(it cant be answered in 5 minutes!)
2.Do a google search on "prophecies fulfilled in jesus christ" (or something like that)
3. Read these 2 books..."reasonable faith" and "evidence that demands a verdict"
Simon greenleaf co founder of harvard law department, examined the internal evidence of the new testament and was convertd
@thesongtowoody name that 1st verse. cause it has been should b4, and refuted. one reason it was not a prophecy.
and the next verse you felt out "And the LORD said to me, Throw it to the potter, that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter"..there goes your proofs. oh on a minor note, you can't use the bible to prove the bible, thats circular reasoning i might as well superman comics to prove his existence
I am unable to respond because I am having trouble deciphering your post because the syntax is a bit out and so is the spelling of certain words.
I am aware of the fallacy of circular reasoning. If you formalize my argument in standard form you will see the argument I presented is cogent and NOT circular. Here is an example of circular reasoning (which by the way many a unaware christian makes)..."the bible is true because the bible says it is true." (not cogent)
This is basically the argument i am presenting. The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. Only God who knows the future could predict the future. The JEWISH pre- Christ Septuagint prophesies attest to the particular details of the 'head' of all things. Because it is fulfilled the god of the bible exists. If any of the premises are false or the argument is not cogent then the conclusion is false too. cheers.
@thesongtowoody "The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. " and those prophectic verse are found and answered in the bible. yes the old parts of the bible are proven by the later parts is your argument. classic circle. you have to use a outside source's.
RE: ***the old parts of the bible are proven by the later parts is your argument. classic circle. you have to use a outside source's. ***
Nolie, its NOT a circle. Ask any philosophy professor! Its linear because the documents were completed at DIFFERENT dates NOT... ALL in ONE sitting! Read isaiah 53 . COMPLETED 700 hundred years before any jesus or apostle was even born! this document existed 700 years PRIOR to the events of the new testament. That's the point. (cont.)
Isaiah is a document written in real time and real space in the year 700bc. Its contents give a description of a man. The real time / real space events of Jesus and the apostles occurred in 30 AD and written around 60 AD! Remember the book of Isaiah and the book of mathew ARE separate books CHRONOLOGICALLY. You are confusing circular reasoning with the idea of a conspiracy of the books to validate each other because you think the bible is ONE book!!! This is not the case.
No you dont. The bible is a COMPILATION of books. Do you think Isaiah and mathew were in cahoots together even though they existed in two different places, did not know each other and lived and died 700 hundred years apart? One predicts the future events, the other lived in the days of their fulfillment. The sources are independent of each other chronologically therefore they are not circular.
This is basically the argument i am presenting. The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. Only God who knows the future could predict the future. The JEWISH pre- Christ Septuagint prophesies attest to the particular details of the 'head' of all things. Because it is fulfilled the god of the bible exists. If any of the premises are false or the argument is not cogent then the conclusion is false too. cheers.
RE ***controversy does not equal proof of anything. if that was the case David Koresh was the 2nd coming. ***
Agreed. I wouldn't argue Jesus is who he said he was because he was controversial. With that said, Jesus must be the most controversial man that ever lived.
Interestingly, (more prophecy) Jesus said " many shall come in my name saying "i am christ" do not believe them""
Another fulfilled prophecy! found in david koresh.... plus many others!!!
@thesongtowoody " " many shall come in my name saying "i am christ" do not believe them"", there were many before jesus who said the same. so i guess mithra was the real messiah and jesus was coping him
@noliesundead RE: *I have yet to do something evil* I guess your moral excellence then is right up there next to Jesus Christ's. You and him are without sin. You have never had a envious thought, never stole anything, never hit your sister when you were a kid, always obeyed your mother and father, never overreacted in anger, have loved others perfectly, you have never lied, etc. "If we say we are without sin we make God a liar but let God be true and everyman a liar" You HAVE sinned.
@noliesundead RE: *I have yet to do something evil* I guess your moral excellence then is right up there next to Jesus Christ's. You and him are without sin. You have never had a envious thought, never stole anything, never hit your sister when you were a kid, always obeyed your mother and father, never overreacted in anger, have loved others perfectly, you have never lied, etc? "If we say we are without sin we make God a liar but let God be true and everyman a liar" You HAVE sinned.
@thesongtowoody yeah, its so selfish of me to not belive that hole universe was made me in mind. i am so selfish that i belive that i am humble creature of this universe that i love. how selfish i am to respect other life and relise that i am one of many. how selfish of me to try life as welll i can and be good for goodness sake. our lifes mather bechose they are random, and they are finenight, and that we die one day. Christianity is nhilistic. atheism is realistic.
@gethsoftware Nolie, It is in YOUR worldview you must subscribe to Nihilism NOT Christianity! All IS nothing if the universe came from no where and has no one at the wheel ! And it is going no where too! Words you use like “selfish, respect, humble, good, love” are a FICTION CREATED by evolution and is ultimately a fantasy. Again, the shoe is on the other foot! The glass slipper of Nihilism fits perfectly on atheisms foot but not eve close on christianity's. Do you even know what nihilism is?
@thesongtowoody So basically, your position is that in order to honor and sympathize with people who gave their life for their country, I have to believe in a supernatural being? And only through this "almighty father", can a person have purpose? As an atheist, I'm here to tell you that it is possible to have purpose without a deity. You don't need someone telling you what to do, what to believe, what is right and wrong. It's called being an adult. Please--give up the condescending stereotypes.
No, thats not my position. My Position is a philosophical one. I dont doubt that atheists are incapable of sympathy without a belief in a supernatural being, what i'm saying is that ultimately , the atheist material worldview necessarily through inescapable logic forces you to the conclusion that life ULTIMATELY has no meaning and any meaning imposed is arbitrary and not objective. According to atheism soldiers are ONLY "self replicating bipedal hominids".
@thesongtowoody Not necessarily. Objectively our purpose is to survive and propagate our species. And human well-being can objectively be established as helpful, if not necessary toward this end, and what is beneficial toward our species can be determined objectively. Beyond that, we are able to be free, and determine a lot about what our purpose should be on a subjective, personal level. That's the great thing about being free. (cont)
RE: Objectively our purpose is to survive and propagate our species.
Where did you get that idea? The problem i have with that statement is the use of the word "objectively". If you had used the word "subjectively" i can accept that but on what basis can you say "objectively" if you believe that the mechanism of natural selection came about by purely random processes? The purpose of man is a fiction in your mind , a byproduct of evolution, do you see that?
@thesongtowoody To continue--I would also add that subjective (the world of human ideas) is not necessarily bad. Notions such as justice, beauty, and yes, morality, are fundamentally subjective. It may be possible to quantify these things objectively and scientifically, and trace them to the furtherance of healthy human societies and thus the long term health of our species, but I don't believe it's necessary to do so in order for the subjective to have value and usefulness (continued)
@thesongtowoody Finally, I would think that for a Christian, Muslim or any religion that believes in a "heaven"--that the death of a soldier would be cause for celebration. After all, they get to go to Heaven, which is supposed to be so much better than this world--right? However as an atheist, I know that this is the only life we're going to have, and that makes it pretty damn precious--regardless of what purpose one choose to organize their life around.
The majority of christian denominations believe that there is a seperation of humanity. Those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. Death is not a direct ticket to heaven. Having genuine faith is the ticket. As an atheist you BELIEVE this is the only life but i dont think you KNOW this is the only life. I dont see how having only an earthly life makes it so precious since all your experiences and memory come to nothing? If you died today what difference is it?
@thesongtowoody You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe. The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity.
Dandaintac, I just want to say fwiw that i care for and appreciate the atheist. I think i realized my "beef" with this thread and the whole atheist paradigm today as i was walking. You might not understand it since i think it reasonable to assume you were not brought up in a religious environment. I was. And have always believed that people are precious and special and that they are imprinted with significance which comes from a good, just God. cont....part 2...
@thesongtowoody Part 1. Since you have been so civil and cordial, I'll do my best to follow suit. If at any point I'm offensive, remember that it is not my intent. I actually was brought up in a semi-religious environment. My father was an atheist, but didn't talk much about it. My mom is a Christian, and we were brought up in that tradition. I went to Bible School, Sunday School, and when we were younger, church on Sundays. For decades I considered myself as a Christian. (cont)
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
@thesongtowoody "because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes". WHY? Do we still hold children responsible in our society for the debts or crimes of their parents? it is an immoral belief system that still follows such an archaic system. Your justification of this makes absolutely no sense at all.
re ***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence.***
I define faith as "trust in the preponderance of the evidence so as to make adherence a wise choice" I am not a radical fideist which would be "faith without evidence". No, I am an evidentialist actually. I exercise faith based upon the case and the best evidence available. So that brand of faith cant be applied to me, maybe others but not me.
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
The arsonist, the fireman and the children are all debtors to God. Acts of bravery, though admirable cannot erase transgression of Gods law. Only the washing with the blood of the sinless sacrificial lamb can.
@thesongtowoody "Only the washing with the blood of the sinless sacrificial lamb can." In other words, I'm right, you're just rewording it in a way that sounds more mystical and justified. Only religion would have such an appalling system. Evil people who believe, get a ticket to heaven, and good, even heroic people who doubt burn in hell forever. This is an evil belief system that is designed solely to keep people in line through fear and bribery. It's disgusting.
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
If the arsonists regret is genuine and God paid a huge price to be able to forgive him and then does so, does that offend you? If the fireman rejects God/sin when it is true , how is that Good?
@thesongtowoody "If the arsonists regret is genuine and God paid a huge price to be able to forgive him and then does so, does that offend you? Why should God have to pay a price in order to forgive someone? I can forgive my kids without sacrificing one of them. That's immoral. I find it truly offensive that a mass murderer can be rewarded with eternal paradise just by believing, and you should too. (cont)
@thesongtowoody "If the fireman rejects God/sin when it is true , how is that Good?" Let's suppose he's rejecting the Hindu God Vishnu, or the Egyptian God Horus--do you still ask "how is that Good?" How is your God more true? You have not proven it. His rejection is good because he is not easily misled, cheated, swindled. What he believes is more likely to be true than false, because he looks for evidence to back up his beliefs, rather than going by what the priests tell him.
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
So, it is right that the arsonist should go to heaven and the fireman to hell since one sinner received forgiveness while the other sinner did not. One receives God's mercy, the other his justice.
Dan, we all have to ask ourselves, what is our attitude towards God? Is it love, devotion and respect? Or is it hate, disdain and disrespect? Do we call God evil and unjust? or do we maintain that he is just and Good? Do we have a psychological predilection to deny his existence to justify living by our own set of mores or do we deny God's existence because there REALLY isn't a single shred of evidence that he IS ??? This is a deep and profound question.
@thesongtowoody "we all have to ask ourselves, what is our attitude towards God?" This is putting the cart before the horse. It's like me asking you what your attitude is toward Ishtar. Would such a question even make sense to you if you don't believe in such a being? Ask yourself--on what basis do I believe in Big Claims? Why do you believe in God? Really? Were you raised a Christian? If you were in Iran, you would be a Muslim.
"Do we have a psychological predilection to deny his existence to justify living by our own set of mores". I see this all the time too. Christians insist on believing that we atheists are just a bunch of hedonists who want to do anything. Did you know the proportion of atheists in prison is much lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population? I could just as easily say that some Christians choose this religion because they know their bad behavior will be forgiven.
RE***I see this all the time too. Christians insist on believing that we atheists are just a bunch of hedonists who want to do anything.*** Some are radical hedonists, some are moderate, some are epicurean and some are regular folk just trying to get by. From a practical perspective the moral differences between atheists and christians i bet are quite similar. I don't doubt that some atheists live "better lives" than some christians but when i made my statement...cont.
....I was making a theological statement based upon "gods revelation". According to God, this is what is going on. It is the universal indictment against humanity. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the ....cont
.... invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
The person of christ, physics, genome codes, the cosmos...No God?
Ultimately, it is not about atheist denying God so they can have drunken orgies and kill people! I wasn't alluding to that. It's more subtle but no less egregious a sin, a denial of his being and maligning his character. It is this posture towards him not radical hedonism that is the greatest offense. If we can eliminate God from the picture we can "be a law unto ourselves". God will judge us by our attitude towards him. He is patient while we are giving him the finger.
Thanks Dan! Appreciate your comments. (i would be liar if i said i infrequently questioned God's goodness! or whether he is there!)(i do...often! but i wrestle with the question who is Good and who is evil?) Is my sense of right and wrong an illusion, a fiction? and if it isn't then God is Good! and we are "evil" since our attitudes toward God are hostile. ie, we question his goodness and we deny his existence. If he really is then we are in fact evil to make god out as "bad".
@thesongtowoody Part 2. I also had a born-again Aunt who "saved" my sister and I. My deconversion was a long process, that involved a lot of thinking. I was never "angry at God" or any of the other stereotypes. First I was a Christian, and read the Bible. Then I thought, well, the Bible's a lot of metaphor and allegory, so I don't put much stock in it, but I'm still a Christian, then I just "believed in God", then I was a deist, then for years I called myself agnostic, and then at the (cont)
Part 2...My beef is that the atheist paradigm is an insult and an offense to my belief system for 2 reasons.
1. It is a possible conclusion but not a necessary one and it is not incontrovertibly proven beyond all doubt.
2.The consequence of atheism tells me, that I/we do not have a special dignity endowed to us by a supernatural good, intelligent, moral being, thisoffends me and insults my intelligence. This is why i harbor some animosity towards atheistic evolution/atheists...
@thesongtowoody Part 3. ...at the age of 48, I realized I was really an atheist. I learned that atheism is just a lack of belief, given the lack of evidence. It is not a claim about certainty. I also realized that it was important to me to believe things as they really are, not as we would like it to be. It was not easy to give up the idea of an afterlife--especially with the death of my father. But I wasn't going to order my life around wishful thinking. I came to realize that it...(cont)
@thesongtowoody Part 4. ...it was up to us to make our lives special. To find purpose and create meaning for ourselves. That we are adults, and we don't need to invent a "heavenly father" to tell us what to do and to tell us right from wrong. We can figure that out. And it should not offend anyone to realize this. It means we are free. Think about what it would be, if there really was an all-powerful being watching your every move, holding the threat of veto over (cont)
My problem with this thread is because the value of soldiers lives is precious not meaningless as ULTIMATELY atheism concludes, this is my beef, i appear hostile towards atheists but its only because i think people are special, because they are created in the image of God. Believe it or not i am only championing the preciousness of the blood spilt in battle ....as sacred but on a divine sacredness basis and grounds. Not random processes.
@thesongtowoody Part 5. ...our every thought or action. Complete around-the-clock surveillance, and the possibility of being punished just for merely doubting the existence of this being, and punished with eternal torture in hell--all for what you think or don't think. And even if you "live forever"--doing what? Worshipping this being for all eternity? Is that really Heaven? So although I don't relish the idea of dying, it's probably just as well that there most likely is no God. Thanks.
Dan, Thanks for sharing that. Interestingly at 42 i feel like i am progressing as you have through the years. Today i would consider myself a christian agnostic. I have looked quite extensively (at an informal level) at arguments for both sides. We have to find a method to use to arrive at "certainty". Our experiences alone cannot be the standard by which we decide if something is true or not. So as an atheist, can you tell me why atheism is true and christianity false?
@thesongtowoody "So as an atheist, can you tell me why atheism is true and christianity false?" Okay, I don't intend to be offensive, but he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Do you, or do you not claim there is an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God? If you do make such a claim, provide evidence. If you have no convincing evidence, I cannot justify believing in an extraordinary claim. I would argue that the God claim is the most extraordinary ever made--yet no evidence. (cont)
Dan, as an atheist, you affirm something. You affirm "all there is, IS... a material world, no spirits, no God's, all that IS came about by unguided, unintelligent, random processes" Again you dont KNOW this to be true by incontrovertible proof, you BELIEVE this to be true based upon how you processed your facts, observations and arguments to support this hypothesis. You negate Christianity and affirm your atheism. Please support your claim by proofs.
@thesongtowoody Okay--wow--lots of posts to respond to. I'll quote a sentence from your posts so you can see what I'm responding to. "Again you dont KNOW this to be true by incontrovertible proof" Of COURSE I don't know--silly! I would have to be omniscient to know to this level, wouldn't I? The best we can hope for is to have increasing confidence in what we believe that we "know". How can we have confidence? EVIDENCE. For big claims, we should insist on big evidence. (cont)
Good. So you will grant that there is the possibility that there might in fact be more than JUST a material world. You grant other realities are possible. You think it is less likely, while i think it MORE likely, that there is a spiritual dimension. Fair enough. The thrust of what i was getting at is that i perceive a rigid dogmatism amongst atheists in their posture towards their worldview which leaves them closed off to knowledge and the possibility that god exists.
RE ***For big claims, we should insist on big evidence. (cont)*** Agreed. I sincerely feel that atheism is guilty of this. Especially in the area of cosmology. For example, explaining "Big bang to feathers" is...i believe irrational and impossible apart from ...intelligence and intent. Claiming it possible apart from this... is... to my mind... as you state... "a big claim!" To me the whole question might in fact be a moral question not a innocent scientific question. cont....
So, How did we get from "big bang to feathers" ...apart from information, intention, cognitive thought? Support your hypothesis/assertion with evidences and proofs...support your "big claim". Please and thanks.
Last night as i was thinking in bed, staring at the ceiling, i started thinking about the moon. Then i thought about the earth and contrasted the two. Then i thought, if the moon left as it is...how long would it take to become like the earth? Would giving it....cont
cont....would giving it 450,000,000,000 years make it like the earth? If yes, why and how? The moon is a barren place and i see reality at the time of the "big bang" as being "elegant, divine, transcendent" The moon is elegant but is barren. I see the earth as an elegant place and i trace back that beauty and elegance to a beautiful intelligence who is...forgive the expression 'holy' and has 'being' in himself. Our being is derived.He IS..."BEING". The universe is his calling card.
@thesongtowoody "Dan, as an atheist, you affirm something". Again, you are making assumptions. Atheism is not believing in Gods--that's all. You do not get to redefine atheism. You also allude to evolution here I think, however, you can be an atheist without believing in evolution. Furthermore, evolution is NOT random, nor is it guided by intelligence. Absolute certainty is unattainable and therefore useless. Those who claim they have it should not be trusted.
Re***Furthermore, evolution is NOT random*** Natural selection is not random but the mechanism that brought into existence the mechanism that IS...natural selection according to atheism is in fact unguided and random. IE Its source the big bang was a statistical fluke. This to me is goes too far. It is ...forgive me...a fairytale for grown ups cloaked in a mask of speculative academia.
I am not redefining atheism. Atheism is the belief "there is no God". What percentage of atheists by default adopt atheism? Therefore statistically it is fair to say that the majority of atheists are evolutionists. Well, i guess some believe in aliens and the Hindu's believe the world itself is an illusion. My buddhist professor was an evolutionist. What are the other alternatives?
@thesongtowoody (cont) So if someone claimed there existed elves--would you believe them? You might be willing to listen to this person's evidence, but he'd better have some pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? and it better not be something as lame as "I feel it in my heart", or "my experience tells me there is" or "you are the proof!" It'd better be hard evidence--right? Especially if they claimed elves were everywhere and all-powerful.
Were the coming of elves prophesied? Did someone claim that an elf fed 5000 people miraculously? Did anyone ever claim nails were driven into an elf's hands and nailed to a cross? Did anyone live with an elf for three years, eating and sleeping together and write a book about those events? The kind of logic that puts the validity of a belief in elves and the belief in the God of the bible on the same level, scares me. How open could you possibly be to do so?
@thesongtowoody "Were the coming of elves prophesied?" Sure--in lots of Christmas books. And if there were prophesies regarding the coming of elves, would you take it any more seriously? Come on. You are listing things from the Bible as if it's hard known fact. There's no evidence for any of it. Just some old book. There are lots of other "Holy" books from other religions that make similar claims. Does this make their religion as valid as yours? Look up the Egyptian God "Horus".
Tac, do i really need to labour this point further? I think you know what i am getting at. Tac, christmas books are fiction. The bible is a collection of books written by people who were seperated by geography and time. No collaboration/conspiracy at one sitting. Some of the bible is poetry, some of it chronicles the real time/space history of the jewish peoples. Some of it is prophetic. The point IS ...they that they are not in the same category except for those who have a bias.
Do a wikipedia search on "elf prophecies" and you get nothing. Do a wikipedia search on "prophecies concerning jesus" and this should show the divergent contrast between the two, in terms of the pervasiveness and scale and seriousness of one over the other. While it is true their is controversy over the veracity of biblical prophecy, there is no controversy over elf prophecy. Case closed.
Re***There are lots of other "Holy" books from other religions that make similar claims. Does this make their religion as valid as yours?***
Yes! and this is my whole point. This is (just) one of my "evidences"....one of my... "reasons" for Faith. If you became a serious student of THAT subject...say for the period of a term, say 3 months, you will see the supremacy of the judeo/christian faith over horus, mohamed and Judaism. But the proofs in the pudding. No taste, no know.
RE***Look up the Egyptian God "Horus".**** Yeah...what about it? My first question would be...Does anyone maintain horus was and is a historical person? If so who? Was his birth predicted over several centuries by people separated by time and geography, in detail? Now take those same questions and apply them to the person of Jesus Christ. How many people today take horus seriously?, how many people today take the person of jesus christ seriously? Why the differences?
I reject elves because, they make no serious claim or impose obligation on my life. AND! because the evidence supporting "elves" is Non existent otherwise it would hold some sway over me. Therefore i dismiss it. I use this same process for evolution, atheism, islam, materialism, the flying spagetti monster, santa claus, unicorns , christianity etc etc. (thats all for today, take care. have a good night)
One thing that i gleaned from your last posts is that you seem to have rejected the possibility of the existence of God on emotional grounds, namely your emotional reactions to christian teachings. Feelings are not a test for truth. The test for truth i would say is... evidence that supports a hypothesis. There are many arguments to support the veracity of the bible. There are arguments that support the hypothesis of a world that is material and only material and thats it !! cont.
@thesongtowoody "One thing that i gleaned from your last posts is that you seem to have rejected the possibility of the existence of God on emotional grounds." You have read me all wrong. After my father died, I desperately wanted Heaven and an afterlife to be true. So it was emotional reactions that kept me believing for a while. It is evidence, or lack of, that has made me believe that most likely these are myths. This is a common stereotype of atheists (continued)
I don't think i have read you wrong. Here's why. Your statements about your feelings about God are negative based on your feelings about the theology of God. For example you turn God's attribute of Omniscience into something offensive. ie, "surveillance" You've twisted it into something it isn't... applied it to God, then rejected both. But the basis on which you reject it has no basis in reality. It is a distortion of the truth. You malign the character of God on emotional grounds
@thesongtowoody "I don't think i have read you wrong." Yes, you have. Sorry, but you do not have a crystal ball into my heart. If I said you were just a Christian for emotional reasons, wouldn't you find that condescending? My critique of the Omniscient God claim is valid and inescapable, but it is not mine originally. I had stopped believing in God before I ever heard this particular criticism. This reminds me of the "mad at God" nonsense we atheists get accused of all the time.
Dan, if you are sincere and honest and have reflected on the subject, I think you will have to agree that you have not rejected christianity on the basis of the cogency of the christian arguments, having looked at them thoroughly and found them wanting rather on the basis that you don't like what you perceive is a God not worthy of your devotion. You can't say from your heart "God is good". If this isn't the case then present your passion free reasons for negating christianity pls.
@thesongtowoody "ou can't say from your heart "God is good". If this isn't the case then present your passion free reasons for negating christianity pls" Sure, no problem. I don't believe in God because there is absolutely no hard evidence for his existence. Not one shred. The God claim is a huge one--if it were anything else, we would be demanding hard evidence. I've tried to point this out. The things you've tried to use as evidence would not hold up as evidence for any other claim.
@thesongtowoody (cont). Every single atheist I've met online or in person, has arrived at their conclusions through a lot of thinking and examining of the evidence. Not a single one has gotten here through an emotional reaction--at least not that I've encountered. It is a stereotype, and an ugly one, that we are just "mad at God".
RE***Every single atheist I've met online or in person, has arrived at their conclusions through a lot of thinking and examining of the evidence. Not a single one has gotten here through an emotional reaction--at least not that I've encountered. It is a stereotype, and an ugly one, that we are just "mad at God".***
Ok. Great! will you kindly care to share that evidence?
@thesongtowoody "will you kindly care to share that evidence?" My evidence for God's nonexistence is your inability to produce such evidence. Even after thousands of years, no one has ever been able to prove a God. Anything you point to as "evidence" can be used as evidence for every other religion--existence, "why are we here", "how do you explain____," and so on. Yet each of these arguments are not evidence at all, just questions.
So, the sane, reasonable man/women must, i believe, proceed by examining the arguments. That is what i am trying to do. Examine the arguments and see which is the sensible conclusion. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point? Anything less than this is radical fedeism, navigating in fog without a radar. I don't know how extensively or seriously you have looked at the arguments for the existence of the christian God but they exist and are, I think , reasonably sound. cont.
@thesongtowoody "I don't know how extensively or seriously you have looked at the arguments for the existence of the christian God but they exist and are, I think , reasonably sound. " I've read them all--the moral argument, the argument from existence, all of them. Not one of them has held up when scrutinized the way we would anything else. When you have an argument you think works, substitute "God" for Apollo or some other God, and see how well the argument works.
Are those arguments and there conclusion debatable? Honestly?...someday's they seem irrefutable and other days i become skeptical. Arguments and there conclusions are subject to "poor logic" and emotional bias's. (for both sides) With this said , i'm not convinced science can explain the origin of the universe apart from an intelligent self aware being who has eternal being within himself and brought about a material world by the means of his power.
@thesongtowoody "i'm not convinced science can explain the origin of the universe apart from an intelligent self aware being" Watch some lectures by people like Lawrence Krauss. It's quite possible that within our lifetime, scientists will figure out how and why the Big Bang happened. At that point, God will be unemployed. At one time, we couldn't even explain the sun without invoking a God. People were convinced we could not explain it otherwise.
Scientist's and you! (smile) ...think..they have explained the sun. But have you/they? Sure, you've labeled it, partially explained how it came about but not completely. Do you think science has explained the sun? I'd say, yes AND NO. Why does the sun bring pleasure? Why does it seem to perfectly suit our planet? Was its placement, its qualities designed or fluke? No! science has not eliminated the need for God as an explanation for MANY things we observe.
@thesongtowoody "Do you think science has explained the sun?" You're saying you don't? Everything you say in this post can indeed be explained by science. Also, it does not "perfectly suit our planet". Life has evolved and adapted to the temperature of the sun. Billions of years ago, it was less warm. We have no idea how common life is in the universe, so there could be billions of other stars suitable for life for all we know.
@DandAinTac Firstly, i suspend judgment as to whether macro evolution occurred at all (but that's a different discussion)
However...
RE***Life has evolved and adapted to the temperature of the sun. **** and that is why ....as i said "it perfectly suits our planet" For you , one complimenting the other is ultimately an accident. Not that the process's are an accident but the fact that the conditions that acted as a womb for it to occur are an accident. No, it is intentional.
"science has not eliminated the need for God as an explanation for MANY things we observe." It's quite possible that within our lifetimes, we may know how the "Big Bang" happened, and what was before (if that part even makes sense). We may also, in our lifetimes, figure out exactly how life began on the Earth, and demonstrate it in the lab. At that point, we will have an unemployed God. God is not needed to explain anything.
(just quickly, heaven will be a renewed self sustaining, world, devoid of evil, full of justice and no lack, with God the creator accessible to all. It will be a physical dwelling place with relationships at its heart. Also, God seeing all should not be attached with such phrases as "surveillance" Do parents have their kids under surveillance? God isnt spying as much as watching over what we do...good and bad...and thats his prerogative, i think. He saw Hitlers acts for example.
@thesongtowoody But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy. The all-knowing, all-powerful God by definition, eliminates any notion of privacy or freedom. I think there's a strong juvenile impulse in us that wants someone to watch over us and take care of us--leftover from our childhood. If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. Especially since Hitler was a professed Catholic, and had a treaty with the Vatican.
re ***But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy*** Yes, if its the government or a stranger But God is not a pervert, he is as christianity claims, Holy. You make a unnecessary connection that God's omniscience necessarily must equal evil and perverted abuse. God is Good not evil. Also, If God is in fact the Author he has by nature the rights to AUTHORITY. Only God is quintessentially sovereign not us!
@thesongtowoody "as christianity claims, Holy." How do you know all this? Just because the Bible said so? This is your only source for all this--that, and because you were raised that way, and your pastor tells you this. Just stop for a minute and think about the logical problems I've pointed out, and consider for once, that it's just what it appears to be--an ancient collection of myths and stories, with no greater validity than the "holy" books of any other religion.
RE**How do you know all this..Just because the Bible said so?*** Yes, that is why. After the supremacy, content, internal testimony, internal cohesiveness, motives, etc, etc of the bible is scrutinized tested and found to have a reasonably high degree of validity, it becomes an authority or standard for truth but not before. This is linear, not circular. Apply the same test to elves, the flying spagetti monster or atheist cosmology and you find it wanting to a higher degree. imho
re ***But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy*** Well according to christianity we are in fact "children" by the NATURE of our RELATIONSHIP to God. That is he "fathered/mothered" us therefore we are his "children" Remember you can be 21 and you are by definition still someones child. You are an adult "child". A creatures relationship to its creator is a father/child relationship by nature and it need not be "creepy".
@thesongtowoody "according to christianity we are in fact "children"" This is a big problem with the monotheistic religions--the permanent sense of childishness it imposes on its followers. It is disempowering, and a form of learned helplessness. I think there's a reason for it. Children are not supposed to question authority figures, and just do what they're told. There's a reason why Catholics and many other religions refer to the senior clergy as "father". Think about this some.
RE***the permanent sense of childishness it imposes on its followers. It is disempowering, and a form of learned helplessness.****While i don't doubt that this goes on it is not biblical. This can occur in management, work, the home, corporations. It is to varying degrees part of the human condition. Abuse of authority is not biblical. Freedom to think for yourself is a christian virtue. While we should respect those in authority they should be humble enough to allow questions.
Christians are called to put away childish things and cultivate character, virtue and to become responsible adults. Nietzsche was biased when he said theists believe in a loving heavenly father because they refuse to grow up. I don't agree that christians should be non thinking, wimpy believers and neither does god rather its antithesis.
RE**If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. Especially since Hitler was a professed Catholic, and had a treaty with the Vatican.***
My point was to give God's omniscience a defense and to try and save it from your perspective on it. Since God "knows" of hitler's acts he can judge them accordingly. If he did not have this attribute how can justice be served? Therefore God's omniscience is a good thing not a bad thing.
RE***If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. **** According to Christianity, God has the power to act immediately but the sovereignty to not act if he so chooses, since the world has been spiraled into a cursed creation. According to the bible, justice will be meted out eventually and ultimately in the final judgment. So, no one can really say,ultimately... "God is unjust!" By the way, weren't hitler's acts part of the unguided mechanism of "natural selection"? Adult?
@thesongtowoody "ustice will be meted out eventually and ultimately in the final judgment." This is an excuse Christians invented to excuse and explain the God character's lack of action and apparent indifference to human suffering. I don't buy it for one second. The problem of evil has never been dealt with convincingly by any Christian apologists. "God will make up for all this! We promise!" Sounds like an abuser who beats his wife and then promises to make it up to her. LAME.
RE***This is an excuse Christians invented to excuse and explain God character's and lack of action and apparent indifference to human suffering*** You said it...APPARENT! indifference. The idea that punishment is postponed is old and not a novel contemporary concept. It is as old as christs revelation of it and the new testament revelation of it which was written 1,950 years ago. Basically postponed punishment is a PROPHECY for how justice will be eventually meted out. cont...
so...if God postpones justice there is a sense in which that expresses itself as mercy. Tac, don't ask God for justice, you just might get it. Remember the biblical paradigm is that no one is Good. Therefore in the final analysis no one who is quintessentially good ever experiences calamity only guilty evil people, therefore God cannot be maligned if evil people suffer evil. The bible is God's revelation. It indicates that God is sifting humanity through history....cont.
...he is separating those who will inherit salvation from those who won't. History is HIS STORY. Also, there are recorded moments, many instances where God does in fact punish evil immediately, so it does show that he is in fact not indifferent but he must be operating by some plan and purpose. The only truly innocent person who EVER suffered GENUINE injustice (to make a transaction), was Jesus Christ who was light but was murdered by the dark people of this world.
RE***The problem of evil....*** Here is another evidence for me (for the christian faith). It is difficult to argue and maintain from a philosophical perspective that evil acts are arbitrary or just a fiction. Evil acts seem to me to be real things. If they are a fiction then i can gun down people in a subway and nobody should argue that that is objectively wrong. Evolution makes evil arbitrary , God makes it objectively wrong. This rings truer, so evidence points to theism.
Tac, I just saw some american preachers on you tube and i think God is just as disgusted as I am about it. I can see how so many would be turned off to God because of all the abuses done in his name. I hate that "God and america" talk, forgive me, it makes me cringe. I believe in a brand of christian faith that displays the kind of humility , more of the likes of say... "billy graham" attitude. fwiw.
"hitler's acts part of the unguided mechanism of "natural selection"?" Heck no. Hitler believed he was doing the work of God. I'll point you to the appropriate passages in Mein Kampf if you need evidence.
Also, Re ***If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him*** Perhaps God didn't because things that don't exist can't act? It's also reasonable that God did observe all that but will mete out justice at a future date as the scriptures testify?We might prefer that he act immediately but perhaps he has his reason's and his plans.
"heaven" will be with this earth. I don't know if you new that. No, it is not God with a long beard and we will play harps and float on clouds. Rather it is people resurrected with PHYSICAL bodies and living on this renewed earth. Nothing will be subject to the second law of thermodynamics, ie, nothing runs down or is subject to decay. I would like to go do some sailing when i get to heaven or maybe go hiking with my resurrected father? I could maybe get used to that. (i'm not JW)
@thesongtowoody ""heaven" will be with this earth." In this post, you are making a lot of assertions for which you have no evidence whatsoever--not even biblical evidence.
After examining both atheistic and theistic arguments, I find some problems in both camps. So i don't think i could ever become a full blown atheist. Why because both sides use very complicated/sophisticated arguments to support their conclusions and with this sophistication its easy to make errors. As a response to this difficulty people accept the conclusions they prefer based on a host of reasons. Some good and some bad. Some reject Christianity on straw men arguments they setup
Ps. (you changed the topic of debate with this last post) (which is fine but ultimately if we are going to communicate and progress i think it detrimental since we will just jump from subject to subject without going deeper into the material of the discussion)(ps,...atheism like theism is based upon arguments and observing nature...both have some reasonable arguments worth considering)(...so my Christianity is based on a certain degree of evidence not "just faith")
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
re ***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence.***
I define faith as "trust in the preponderance of the evidence so as to make adherence a wise choice" I am not a radical fideist which would be "faith without evidence". No, I am an evidentialist actually. I exercise faith based upon the case and the best evidence available. So that brand of faith cant be applied to me, maybe others but not me.
@thesongtowoody "I define faith as" You are making up your own definition here. Faith means believing in something without evidence. If you are believing in something based on evidence, that can be reliably tested, and is framed in a way that can be disproven, then what you have is "science", not "faith". If you have evidence in your "faith", you still have not shared it. All you have are questions and assertions based largely on ignorance and wishful thinking. I know it sounds rough, but...
RE***Faith means believing in something without evidence**** It can mean that but it doesn't have to mean that in every case. Their are different kinds of "faith". There are 3 categories. Radical fedeists, moderate fedeists and evidentialists. The 1st believe with zero evidence(not necessary), 2nd with some(sufficient enough for them), 3 because of evidence(proven). All i'm saying is...i have reasons(logic) to exercise trust.(faith)ie i believe because its reasonable to do so.
Since there is a (reverse) corelation between ones lack of belief in supernatural and education, it would be interesting to find out if there isn't higher percentage of Atheists among pilots, guys serving ballistic missiles and reactors on subs, intelligence etc.
SwineNahNah 2 weeks ago
Hi. Can I use some of your video in a piece I'm doing for the director of "Rock Beyond Belief" at Fort Bragg, NC?
Thanks.
1LT B. 92A 13 years of service Iraq Vet.
r3ggi3000 2 weeks ago
@r3ggi3000 Yes, no problem!
ChuckyJesus666 2 weeks ago
@ChuckyJesus666 Thanks. I already put the video together but I will mirror it. Check it out. It is the one by Justin Griffith.
r3ggi3000 2 weeks ago
I didn't see one of these people in a foxhole. Looks like someone misunderstands the statement. Were you there as each one of these people closed in on deaths and saw that none of them turned to God for salvation? Maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but this video is dumb, because it's nothing more than poorly put together biased junk.
MichaelCosta84 1 month ago
@MichaelCosta84 Do you always take everything literally?
ChuckyJesus666 4 weeks ago
@MichaelCosta84 I'm an atheist and I was in a foxhole. I served in Afghanistan in the U.S Army along side many other atheist soldiers. I never turned to God for salvation.
haymaker710 3 weeks ago
@haymaker710 Thank you for your service, Sir.
ChuckyJesus666 3 weeks ago
@ChuckyJesus666 Your welcome.
haymaker710 3 weeks ago
Atheists are dishonest. They want you to believe based upon their worldview that man is the product of unguided, purposeless, random processes, and then at the same time they want you to sympathize for men who died in battle, who ultimately are just primates killing other primates. War is just evolution. So why should i shed a meaningless tear? for meaningless lives? You cant have your cake and eat it too! Atheist be consistent! Man is nothing according to you! Sin is real. Change position.
thesongtowoody 5 months ago
@thesongtowoody Yes, very nice witnessing. I'm sure 700 Club is proud of you.
Asperine3460 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asperine3460 Shame on you for championing a worldview that teaches that these brave soldiers who died in battle are nothing more than soulless self replicating bi pedal hominids.
"Yes, very nice witnessing. I'm sure 700 Club is proud of you." You're a liar! Stop pretending like you care about witnessing. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. Atheism is an affront to god.
thesongtowoody 5 months ago
@thesongtowoody Are you against war?
ChuckyJesus666 5 months ago
@ChuckyJesus666 chucky, I am against evil and against sin. I believe the world as it functions now will one day be totally changed. I believe in self defense, i also believe in peace and talking it out. In sharing. My opinion about war is incomplete at this point. In this world however perhaps there's an argument to be made that it is sometimes a necessary evil. I don't know if am a pacifist or not. I despised Hitler ideologies. Perhaps i would have enlisted to fight him.
thesongtowoody 5 months ago
@thesongtowoody Funny, except for the sin bit (you have to believe in a god to believe in the concept of sin), you and I have very similar views regarding war. Atheists despise Hitler as much as you do; so, if it's a just war we're talking about, there are both Christians and atheists out there fighting (and people of other faiths and viewpoints). The point of this video is simply to demonstrate that the old saying about there being no atheists in foxholes is false.
ChuckyJesus666 5 months ago
@thesongtowoody
The only dishonesty shown are by those who claim to know what the mind of an invisible man in the sky wants....you my disillusioned friend fit the bill of a dishonest puppet.
Killer0fTheSun 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody "man is the product of unguided, purposeless, random processes"...evolution is not random.
i feel sorry for you, you NEED a god to show empathy. you are a sociopath.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead
Nolie....RE : "evolution is not random."
The process of..."Natural selection" ( the mechanism of evolution )...came about without intention. It is ITSELF an "accident" therefore man, his life, his passions are all in the final analysis , POINTLESS and MEANINGLESS AND WITH NO SPECIAL VALUE. This conclusion is inescapable. If i am a sociopath its not bad OR good. Its natural !!!! It's evolution!!!! No! God is the intelligent designer. Ethics have an objective basis. God.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, I feel a bit sorry for you because you don't know that your conscious mind, intellect, heart, bears the likeness of the God who IS . You are not JUST a self replicating bi pedal hominid !!!!
Where you come from... tells you... who you ARE ....and gives you your WORTH.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody no, i feel sorry for you, you're 32 and still have a boogyman under the bed.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, the shoe is on the other foot. Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion magically produced everything as we see it today... in its present form and structure with irreducible complexity must also have the predilection to believe in the boogieman too! You believe in fairy-tales and superstitious stories of fiction. How convenient for you to remove God from the equation so you can live as you choose?Be wise, Invest in something with a future. Cheers
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody " Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion"...and that's where i got to stop you, because you are not even citing the big bang theory correctly. you did not even stop to see if you were correct. only people who never bother to learn about the big bang says " unguided explosion."
"produced everything as we see it today"....thats not in the theory
"in its present form and structure"....that not in there either.
and irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, RE:"" Anyone who can believe that an unguided explosion"...and that's where i got to stop you, because you are not even citing the big bang theory correctly. you did not even stop to see if you were correct."
You can slice the pie a million different ways...its still pie! So..i have it wrong. Ok. So it WAS guided! Thats what i've believe too! Put your cards on the table...was it guided or not? Fact or fairytales? Either / Or. I am citing it correctly and you wont answer me.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody well you see that would be right, but your working with cake not pie buddy.
it is guide, by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry, ect, for some reason you think those things did not exist just cause it was long ago. and you seem to miss the main point. there was no explosion. and if you think god did it, explain where did god come from? you cant answer something with fantasy character. and nice job of showing humility and going to look up what you got wrong.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie what constitutes "guidance" chaos?
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody how is the predictable nature of are universe "chaos"?
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, the point i'm trying to make is that the word "guided" if broken down to its constituent parts reveals intelligence, intention, order and meaningful causal relationships that make possible the achievement of a final goal or effect. So i agree that the universe was "guided" to be what it is today and that Guidance came from a personal being who is the source ITSELF of all the academic disciplines of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, sociology etc Miraculous cosmos!
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie,RE: *** it is guided, by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry, ect*** That is a very very very simple statement that PRETENDS to sufficiently satisfy the demands of the question "how did everything get here in its present form and structure" and you accept it as sufficient and satisfactory but ignore the astronomical deficiency of the satisfactory nature of the answer to arrive at the universe as you experience it today. That answer is a fairytale and is no answer at ALL
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody again you can't state that until you prove god exist. now you are just repeating yourself, and if you do i will only reply with this statement again
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie RE:""produced everything as we see it today"....thats not in the theory" According to the materialistic worldview...there is an unbroken series of mechanisms that can be traced back from modern man, the present cosmos... all the way back to the big bang. According to that worldview all the potential for what we see today necessarily finds its origin in the explosion. Logic demands it. As i said... an unbroken regressive series from you to the big bang. Be honest . Please.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody and that worldview as you call, can be backed up, have you been able to produce any evidence for irreducible complexity? and again NOT A EXPLOSION, you seem to be unable to figure that part out.
and potential and "produced everything as we see it today" are 2 very different phrases, but nice job at the back peddling
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, RE : *and again NOT A EXPLOSION, you seem to be unable to figure that part out.* You are playing a game of semantics.
Is it because the word hints at the absurdity of the notion that everything could come from a big bang/explosion apart from purposive intentional creation?
You have a bias against any evidence that might point to intelligent design because you have a vested interest in denying the existence of God. You hate God.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesongtowoody You are playing a game of semantics....no, dont know the actually theory. You have a bias against any evidence that might point to intelligent design ....you have not presented any as on yet, so how can i have a bias?
how can i hate god? i dont even believe it to be real, that statement i akin to saying i pixies.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody thank you for showing your complete ignorance of science. " How convenient for you to remove God from the equation so you can live as you choose?" unlike you, i do not need god to be a good person.
on a side note there exist proof for my beliefs, you rely on blind faith.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, RE: *unlike you, i do not need god to be a good person.* According to your definition of "good" you are right but according to God's definition you are wrong. According to God's definition you are in fact, bad. You have a natural proclivity to do evil. You have to measure your "goodness" against a higher standard of what it means to be GOOD and not a distorted definition. Convicts think they are "good" people too! Blind faith? No! Empirical evidence,experience and reason.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody "according to God's definition"...show evidence for a god. until then you have no argument.
" You have a natural proclivity to do evil."....well, since i don't beblive in god, and have yet to do something evil, kinda disproves you.
"Convicts think they are "good" people too! "...because they are sociopaths.
Blind faith? No! Empirical evidence.....ok, show some.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie, It will be a challenge to present the evidence for the existence of God due to the limited room provided in these short "sound byte" posts. It is a subject that demands thorough investigation,time and analysis. It will take time and some of the arguments are quite sophisticated and open to critical analysis. My sober investigations lead me to believe the preponderance of the evidence points to a personal creator. With that said i will try nevertheless...
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead Here is one of maybe a thousand. The relationships between jewish old testament texts and the new testament record. When was the Septuagint written? Was it completed before the time of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes they were. check it yourself. Only God can know the future before it happens. The details of the crucifixion of christ are foretold in fine detail hundreds of years before the event and by a religious faith that has no vested interest in the propagation of Christianity.Fluke?
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody "The relationships between jewish old testament texts and the new testament"....well since the writers of the nt, have the old to go by, it's not convincing.
and there was no Nazareth in the time that Jesus was reported to live in.
"The details of the crucifixion of christ are foretold"....same refution as 1st statement, and name the verse that foretold it.
you really think early christian did not have vested interest in the propagation of Christianity? you're silly
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead RE *...show evidence for a god* Will a white Jury find a black man "not guilty" despite evidence he is not guilty? Maybe...
If i present you with persuasive evidence will you accept it? It IS possible to provide a rational defense of Christianity but that does not mean you will become a christian. See, believing in God, is not a intellectual issue...it is a MORAL issue. How can you be "good" if you willfully deny the existence of God?Unbelief is a moral issue not an intellectual 1.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead You are making an unsupported assertion. Present your evidence the apostles fabricated the Gospel accounts? If they did ... wouldn't you think they’d recant just before they are crucified upside down for a lie espoused themselves or fed to lions?(hey guys just joking!)
You misread. I said the source, ie the JEWISH faith had no vested interest. The source of the prophecy is non christian but the christian events occurred!
" they lied!" prove it...The internal evidence is not thr
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie,
1. Investigate the question of "did the new testament writers fabricate the new testament" (increase the depth of your understanding of this question)(it cant be answered in 5 minutes!)
2.Do a google search on "prophecies fulfilled in jesus christ" (or something like that)
3. Read these 2 books..."reasonable faith" and "evidence that demands a verdict"
Simon greenleaf co founder of harvard law department, examined the internal evidence of the new testament and was convertd
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead RE ***and name the verse that foretold it.***
The Jewish Septuagint reads "They pierced my hands and my feet"
Want to hear a prophetic old testament verse about God/Jesus's betrayal for 30 pieces of silver?
Zachariah 11:11-13 If ye think it good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver."
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody name that 1st verse. cause it has been should b4, and refuted. one reason it was not a prophecy.
and the next verse you felt out "And the LORD said to me, Throw it to the potter, that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter"..there goes your proofs. oh on a minor note, you can't use the bible to prove the bible, thats circular reasoning i might as well superman comics to prove his existence
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead
Hi Nolie,
I am unable to respond because I am having trouble deciphering your post because the syntax is a bit out and so is the spelling of certain words.
I am aware of the fallacy of circular reasoning. If you formalize my argument in standard form you will see the argument I presented is cogent and NOT circular. Here is an example of circular reasoning (which by the way many a unaware christian makes)..."the bible is true because the bible says it is true." (not cogent)
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead Nolie,
This is basically the argument i am presenting. The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. Only God who knows the future could predict the future. The JEWISH pre- Christ Septuagint prophesies attest to the particular details of the 'head' of all things. Because it is fulfilled the god of the bible exists. If any of the premises are false or the argument is not cogent then the conclusion is false too. cheers.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody "The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. " and those prophectic verse are found and answered in the bible. yes the old parts of the bible are proven by the later parts is your argument. classic circle. you have to use a outside source's.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead
RE: ***the old parts of the bible are proven by the later parts is your argument. classic circle. you have to use a outside source's. ***
Nolie, its NOT a circle. Ask any philosophy professor! Its linear because the documents were completed at DIFFERENT dates NOT... ALL in ONE sitting! Read isaiah 53 . COMPLETED 700 hundred years before any jesus or apostle was even born! this document existed 700 years PRIOR to the events of the new testament. That's the point. (cont.)
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead
Isaiah is a document written in real time and real space in the year 700bc. Its contents give a description of a man. The real time / real space events of Jesus and the apostles occurred in 30 AD and written around 60 AD! Remember the book of Isaiah and the book of mathew ARE separate books CHRONOLOGICALLY. You are confusing circular reasoning with the idea of a conspiracy of the books to validate each other because you think the bible is ONE book!!! This is not the case.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead
RE ****you have to use a outside source's. ****
No you dont. The bible is a COMPILATION of books. Do you think Isaiah and mathew were in cahoots together even though they existed in two different places, did not know each other and lived and died 700 hundred years apart? One predicts the future events, the other lived in the days of their fulfillment. The sources are independent of each other chronologically therefore they are not circular.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noliesundead Nolie,
This is basically the argument i am presenting. The God of the bible exists because prophetic utterances are fullfilled. Only God who knows the future could predict the future. The JEWISH pre- Christ Septuagint prophesies attest to the particular details of the 'head' of all things. Because it is fulfilled the god of the bible exists. If any of the premises are false or the argument is not cogent then the conclusion is false too. cheers.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead
Nolie,
Here is an interesting and simple way to think about prophecy and the person of Jesus Christ.
1. The jewish people are a very ancient tribe and peoples who were entrusted with the books of the old testament.
2. Every Jew, in every period of jewish history waits for the messiah
3. Jesus was a jew and claimed to be messiah even though some jews rejected him
4.Even if yu deny jesus ever existed there is no doubt th controversy surrounding this person is incredible!
Fluke?
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody controversy does not equal proof of anything. if that was the case David Koresh was the 2nd coming.
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead
RE ***controversy does not equal proof of anything. if that was the case David Koresh was the 2nd coming. ***
Agreed. I wouldn't argue Jesus is who he said he was because he was controversial. With that said, Jesus must be the most controversial man that ever lived.
Interestingly, (more prophecy) Jesus said " many shall come in my name saying "i am christ" do not believe them""
Another fulfilled prophecy! found in david koresh.... plus many others!!!
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody " " many shall come in my name saying "i am christ" do not believe them"", there were many before jesus who said the same. so i guess mithra was the real messiah and jesus was coping him
noliesundead 4 months ago
@noliesundead RE: *I have yet to do something evil* I guess your moral excellence then is right up there next to Jesus Christ's. You and him are without sin. You have never had a envious thought, never stole anything, never hit your sister when you were a kid, always obeyed your mother and father, never overreacted in anger, have loved others perfectly, you have never lied, etc. "If we say we are without sin we make God a liar but let God be true and everyman a liar" You HAVE sinned.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noliesundead RE: *I have yet to do something evil* I guess your moral excellence then is right up there next to Jesus Christ's. You and him are without sin. You have never had a envious thought, never stole anything, never hit your sister when you were a kid, always obeyed your mother and father, never overreacted in anger, have loved others perfectly, you have never lied, etc? "If we say we are without sin we make God a liar but let God be true and everyman a liar" You HAVE sinned.
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@noliesundead
Google..."nirvana they hung him on a cross"(rare) and "endless nameless" the latter is one of my favorites!
John
Vancouver canada
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody yeah, its so selfish of me to not belive that hole universe was made me in mind. i am so selfish that i belive that i am humble creature of this universe that i love. how selfish i am to respect other life and relise that i am one of many. how selfish of me to try life as welll i can and be good for goodness sake. our lifes mather bechose they are random, and they are finenight, and that we die one day. Christianity is nhilistic. atheism is realistic.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
@gethsoftware Nolie, It is in YOUR worldview you must subscribe to Nihilism NOT Christianity! All IS nothing if the universe came from no where and has no one at the wheel ! And it is going no where too! Words you use like “selfish, respect, humble, good, love” are a FICTION CREATED by evolution and is ultimately a fantasy. Again, the shoe is on the other foot! The glass slipper of Nihilism fits perfectly on atheisms foot but not eve close on christianity's. Do you even know what nihilism is?
thesongtowoody 4 months ago
@thesongtowoody So basically, your position is that in order to honor and sympathize with people who gave their life for their country, I have to believe in a supernatural being? And only through this "almighty father", can a person have purpose? As an atheist, I'm here to tell you that it is possible to have purpose without a deity. You don't need someone telling you what to do, what to believe, what is right and wrong. It's called being an adult. Please--give up the condescending stereotypes.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac
No, thats not my position. My Position is a philosophical one. I dont doubt that atheists are incapable of sympathy without a belief in a supernatural being, what i'm saying is that ultimately , the atheist material worldview necessarily through inescapable logic forces you to the conclusion that life ULTIMATELY has no meaning and any meaning imposed is arbitrary and not objective. According to atheism soldiers are ONLY "self replicating bipedal hominids".
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody Not necessarily. Objectively our purpose is to survive and propagate our species. And human well-being can objectively be established as helpful, if not necessary toward this end, and what is beneficial toward our species can be determined objectively. Beyond that, we are able to be free, and determine a lot about what our purpose should be on a subjective, personal level. That's the great thing about being free. (cont)
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac
Necessarily !
RE: Objectively our purpose is to survive and propagate our species.
Where did you get that idea? The problem i have with that statement is the use of the word "objectively". If you had used the word "subjectively" i can accept that but on what basis can you say "objectively" if you believe that the mechanism of natural selection came about by purely random processes? The purpose of man is a fiction in your mind , a byproduct of evolution, do you see that?
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody To continue--I would also add that subjective (the world of human ideas) is not necessarily bad. Notions such as justice, beauty, and yes, morality, are fundamentally subjective. It may be possible to quantify these things objectively and scientifically, and trace them to the furtherance of healthy human societies and thus the long term health of our species, but I don't believe it's necessary to do so in order for the subjective to have value and usefulness (continued)
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody Finally, I would think that for a Christian, Muslim or any religion that believes in a "heaven"--that the death of a soldier would be cause for celebration. After all, they get to go to Heaven, which is supposed to be so much better than this world--right? However as an atheist, I know that this is the only life we're going to have, and that makes it pretty damn precious--regardless of what purpose one choose to organize their life around.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac
The majority of christian denominations believe that there is a seperation of humanity. Those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. Death is not a direct ticket to heaven. Having genuine faith is the ticket. As an atheist you BELIEVE this is the only life but i dont think you KNOW this is the only life. I dont see how having only an earthly life makes it so precious since all your experiences and memory come to nothing? If you died today what difference is it?
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe. The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity.
DandAinTac 3 months ago
@DandAinTac
Dandaintac, I just want to say fwiw that i care for and appreciate the atheist. I think i realized my "beef" with this thread and the whole atheist paradigm today as i was walking. You might not understand it since i think it reasonable to assume you were not brought up in a religious environment. I was. And have always believed that people are precious and special and that they are imprinted with significance which comes from a good, just God. cont....part 2...
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody Part 1. Since you have been so civil and cordial, I'll do my best to follow suit. If at any point I'm offensive, remember that it is not my intent. I actually was brought up in a semi-religious environment. My father was an atheist, but didn't talk much about it. My mom is a Christian, and we were brought up in that tradition. I went to Bible School, Sunday School, and when we were younger, church on Sundays. For decades I considered myself as a Christian. (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes". WHY? Do we still hold children responsible in our society for the debts or crimes of their parents? it is an immoral belief system that still follows such an archaic system. Your justification of this makes absolutely no sense at all.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
re ***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence.***
I define faith as "trust in the preponderance of the evidence so as to make adherence a wise choice" I am not a radical fideist which would be "faith without evidence". No, I am an evidentialist actually. I exercise faith based upon the case and the best evidence available. So that brand of faith cant be applied to me, maybe others but not me.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
The arsonist, the fireman and the children are all debtors to God. Acts of bravery, though admirable cannot erase transgression of Gods law. Only the washing with the blood of the sinless sacrificial lamb can.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "Only the washing with the blood of the sinless sacrificial lamb can." In other words, I'm right, you're just rewording it in a way that sounds more mystical and justified. Only religion would have such an appalling system. Evil people who believe, get a ticket to heaven, and good, even heroic people who doubt burn in hell forever. This is an evil belief system that is designed solely to keep people in line through fear and bribery. It's disgusting.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
If the arsonists regret is genuine and God paid a huge price to be able to forgive him and then does so, does that offend you? If the fireman rejects God/sin when it is true , how is that Good?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "If the arsonists regret is genuine and God paid a huge price to be able to forgive him and then does so, does that offend you? Why should God have to pay a price in order to forgive someone? I can forgive my kids without sacrificing one of them. That's immoral. I find it truly offensive that a mass murderer can be rewarded with eternal paradise just by believing, and you should too. (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "If the fireman rejects God/sin when it is true , how is that Good?" Let's suppose he's rejecting the Hindu God Vishnu, or the Egyptian God Horus--do you still ask "how is that Good?" How is your God more true? You have not proven it. His rejection is good because he is not easily misled, cheated, swindled. What he believes is more likely to be true than false, because he looks for evidence to back up his beliefs, rather than going by what the priests tell him.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE ***The arsonist who burns down the schoolhouse, killing some of the children, and later repents and finds Christ, goes to Heaven. The atheist fireman who sacrifices his life to save some of the children, goes to Hell so God can continue the burning for eternity. ***
So, it is right that the arsonist should go to heaven and the fireman to hell since one sinner received forgiveness while the other sinner did not. One receives God's mercy, the other his justice.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Dan, we all have to ask ourselves, what is our attitude towards God? Is it love, devotion and respect? Or is it hate, disdain and disrespect? Do we call God evil and unjust? or do we maintain that he is just and Good? Do we have a psychological predilection to deny his existence to justify living by our own set of mores or do we deny God's existence because there REALLY isn't a single shred of evidence that he IS ??? This is a deep and profound question.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesongtowoody "we all have to ask ourselves, what is our attitude towards God?" This is putting the cart before the horse. It's like me asking you what your attitude is toward Ishtar. Would such a question even make sense to you if you don't believe in such a being? Ask yourself--on what basis do I believe in Big Claims? Why do you believe in God? Really? Were you raised a Christian? If you were in Iran, you would be a Muslim.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
"Do we have a psychological predilection to deny his existence to justify living by our own set of mores". I see this all the time too. Christians insist on believing that we atheists are just a bunch of hedonists who want to do anything. Did you know the proportion of atheists in prison is much lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population? I could just as easily say that some Christians choose this religion because they know their bad behavior will be forgiven.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***I see this all the time too. Christians insist on believing that we atheists are just a bunch of hedonists who want to do anything.*** Some are radical hedonists, some are moderate, some are epicurean and some are regular folk just trying to get by. From a practical perspective the moral differences between atheists and christians i bet are quite similar. I don't doubt that some atheists live "better lives" than some christians but when i made my statement...cont.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac
....I was making a theological statement based upon "gods revelation". According to God, this is what is going on. It is the universal indictment against humanity. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the ....cont
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
.... invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
The person of christ, physics, genome codes, the cosmos...No God?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Ultimately, it is not about atheist denying God so they can have drunken orgies and kill people! I wasn't alluding to that. It's more subtle but no less egregious a sin, a denial of his being and maligning his character. It is this posture towards him not radical hedonism that is the greatest offense. If we can eliminate God from the picture we can "be a law unto ourselves". God will judge us by our attitude towards him. He is patient while we are giving him the finger.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Thanks Dan! Appreciate your comments. (i would be liar if i said i infrequently questioned God's goodness! or whether he is there!)(i do...often! but i wrestle with the question who is Good and who is evil?) Is my sense of right and wrong an illusion, a fiction? and if it isn't then God is Good! and we are "evil" since our attitudes toward God are hostile. ie, we question his goodness and we deny his existence. If he really is then we are in fact evil to make god out as "bad".
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody Part 2. I also had a born-again Aunt who "saved" my sister and I. My deconversion was a long process, that involved a lot of thinking. I was never "angry at God" or any of the other stereotypes. First I was a Christian, and read the Bible. Then I thought, well, the Bible's a lot of metaphor and allegory, so I don't put much stock in it, but I'm still a Christian, then I just "believed in God", then I was a deist, then for years I called myself agnostic, and then at the (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Part 2...My beef is that the atheist paradigm is an insult and an offense to my belief system for 2 reasons.
1. It is a possible conclusion but not a necessary one and it is not incontrovertibly proven beyond all doubt.
2.The consequence of atheism tells me, that I/we do not have a special dignity endowed to us by a supernatural good, intelligent, moral being, thisoffends me and insults my intelligence. This is why i harbor some animosity towards atheistic evolution/atheists...
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody Part 3. ...at the age of 48, I realized I was really an atheist. I learned that atheism is just a lack of belief, given the lack of evidence. It is not a claim about certainty. I also realized that it was important to me to believe things as they really are, not as we would like it to be. It was not easy to give up the idea of an afterlife--especially with the death of my father. But I wasn't going to order my life around wishful thinking. I came to realize that it...(cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody Part 4. ...it was up to us to make our lives special. To find purpose and create meaning for ourselves. That we are adults, and we don't need to invent a "heavenly father" to tell us what to do and to tell us right from wrong. We can figure that out. And it should not offend anyone to realize this. It means we are free. Think about what it would be, if there really was an all-powerful being watching your every move, holding the threat of veto over (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Part 3....
My problem with this thread is because the value of soldiers lives is precious not meaningless as ULTIMATELY atheism concludes, this is my beef, i appear hostile towards atheists but its only because i think people are special, because they are created in the image of God. Believe it or not i am only championing the preciousness of the blood spilt in battle ....as sacred but on a divine sacredness basis and grounds. Not random processes.
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@thesongtowoody Part 5. ...our every thought or action. Complete around-the-clock surveillance, and the possibility of being punished just for merely doubting the existence of this being, and punished with eternal torture in hell--all for what you think or don't think. And even if you "live forever"--doing what? Worshipping this being for all eternity? Is that really Heaven? So although I don't relish the idea of dying, it's probably just as well that there most likely is no God. Thanks.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Dan, Thanks for sharing that. Interestingly at 42 i feel like i am progressing as you have through the years. Today i would consider myself a christian agnostic. I have looked quite extensively (at an informal level) at arguments for both sides. We have to find a method to use to arrive at "certainty". Our experiences alone cannot be the standard by which we decide if something is true or not. So as an atheist, can you tell me why atheism is true and christianity false?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "So as an atheist, can you tell me why atheism is true and christianity false?" Okay, I don't intend to be offensive, but he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Do you, or do you not claim there is an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God? If you do make such a claim, provide evidence. If you have no convincing evidence, I cannot justify believing in an extraordinary claim. I would argue that the God claim is the most extraordinary ever made--yet no evidence. (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Dan, as an atheist, you affirm something. You affirm "all there is, IS... a material world, no spirits, no God's, all that IS came about by unguided, unintelligent, random processes" Again you dont KNOW this to be true by incontrovertible proof, you BELIEVE this to be true based upon how you processed your facts, observations and arguments to support this hypothesis. You negate Christianity and affirm your atheism. Please support your claim by proofs.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody Okay--wow--lots of posts to respond to. I'll quote a sentence from your posts so you can see what I'm responding to. "Again you dont KNOW this to be true by incontrovertible proof" Of COURSE I don't know--silly! I would have to be omniscient to know to this level, wouldn't I? The best we can hope for is to have increasing confidence in what we believe that we "know". How can we have confidence? EVIDENCE. For big claims, we should insist on big evidence. (cont)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Good. So you will grant that there is the possibility that there might in fact be more than JUST a material world. You grant other realities are possible. You think it is less likely, while i think it MORE likely, that there is a spiritual dimension. Fair enough. The thrust of what i was getting at is that i perceive a rigid dogmatism amongst atheists in their posture towards their worldview which leaves them closed off to knowledge and the possibility that god exists.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE ***For big claims, we should insist on big evidence. (cont)*** Agreed. I sincerely feel that atheism is guilty of this. Especially in the area of cosmology. For example, explaining "Big bang to feathers" is...i believe irrational and impossible apart from ...intelligence and intent. Claiming it possible apart from this... is... to my mind... as you state... "a big claim!" To me the whole question might in fact be a moral question not a innocent scientific question. cont....
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody
So, How did we get from "big bang to feathers" ...apart from information, intention, cognitive thought? Support your hypothesis/assertion with evidences and proofs...support your "big claim". Please and thanks.
Last night as i was thinking in bed, staring at the ceiling, i started thinking about the moon. Then i thought about the earth and contrasted the two. Then i thought, if the moon left as it is...how long would it take to become like the earth? Would giving it....cont
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
cont....would giving it 450,000,000,000 years make it like the earth? If yes, why and how? The moon is a barren place and i see reality at the time of the "big bang" as being "elegant, divine, transcendent" The moon is elegant but is barren. I see the earth as an elegant place and i trace back that beauty and elegance to a beautiful intelligence who is...forgive the expression 'holy' and has 'being' in himself. Our being is derived.He IS..."BEING". The universe is his calling card.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "Dan, as an atheist, you affirm something". Again, you are making assumptions. Atheism is not believing in Gods--that's all. You do not get to redefine atheism. You also allude to evolution here I think, however, you can be an atheist without believing in evolution. Furthermore, evolution is NOT random, nor is it guided by intelligence. Absolute certainty is unattainable and therefore useless. Those who claim they have it should not be trusted.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Re***Furthermore, evolution is NOT random*** Natural selection is not random but the mechanism that brought into existence the mechanism that IS...natural selection according to atheism is in fact unguided and random. IE Its source the big bang was a statistical fluke. This to me is goes too far. It is ...forgive me...a fairytale for grown ups cloaked in a mask of speculative academia.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
I am not redefining atheism. Atheism is the belief "there is no God". What percentage of atheists by default adopt atheism? Therefore statistically it is fair to say that the majority of atheists are evolutionists. Well, i guess some believe in aliens and the Hindu's believe the world itself is an illusion. My buddhist professor was an evolutionist. What are the other alternatives?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody (cont) So if someone claimed there existed elves--would you believe them? You might be willing to listen to this person's evidence, but he'd better have some pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? and it better not be something as lame as "I feel it in my heart", or "my experience tells me there is" or "you are the proof!" It'd better be hard evidence--right? Especially if they claimed elves were everywhere and all-powerful.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Were the coming of elves prophesied? Did someone claim that an elf fed 5000 people miraculously? Did anyone ever claim nails were driven into an elf's hands and nailed to a cross? Did anyone live with an elf for three years, eating and sleeping together and write a book about those events? The kind of logic that puts the validity of a belief in elves and the belief in the God of the bible on the same level, scares me. How open could you possibly be to do so?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "Were the coming of elves prophesied?" Sure--in lots of Christmas books. And if there were prophesies regarding the coming of elves, would you take it any more seriously? Come on. You are listing things from the Bible as if it's hard known fact. There's no evidence for any of it. Just some old book. There are lots of other "Holy" books from other religions that make similar claims. Does this make their religion as valid as yours? Look up the Egyptian God "Horus".
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Tac, do i really need to labour this point further? I think you know what i am getting at. Tac, christmas books are fiction. The bible is a collection of books written by people who were seperated by geography and time. No collaboration/conspiracy at one sitting. Some of the bible is poetry, some of it chronicles the real time/space history of the jewish peoples. Some of it is prophetic. The point IS ...they that they are not in the same category except for those who have a bias.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Do a wikipedia search on "elf prophecies" and you get nothing. Do a wikipedia search on "prophecies concerning jesus" and this should show the divergent contrast between the two, in terms of the pervasiveness and scale and seriousness of one over the other. While it is true their is controversy over the veracity of biblical prophecy, there is no controversy over elf prophecy. Case closed.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Re***There are lots of other "Holy" books from other religions that make similar claims. Does this make their religion as valid as yours?***
Yes! and this is my whole point. This is (just) one of my "evidences"....one of my... "reasons" for Faith. If you became a serious student of THAT subject...say for the period of a term, say 3 months, you will see the supremacy of the judeo/christian faith over horus, mohamed and Judaism. But the proofs in the pudding. No taste, no know.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***Look up the Egyptian God "Horus".**** Yeah...what about it? My first question would be...Does anyone maintain horus was and is a historical person? If so who? Was his birth predicted over several centuries by people separated by time and geography, in detail? Now take those same questions and apply them to the person of Jesus Christ. How many people today take horus seriously?, how many people today take the person of jesus christ seriously? Why the differences?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
I reject elves because, they make no serious claim or impose obligation on my life. AND! because the evidence supporting "elves" is Non existent otherwise it would hold some sway over me. Therefore i dismiss it. I use this same process for evolution, atheism, islam, materialism, the flying spagetti monster, santa claus, unicorns , christianity etc etc. (thats all for today, take care. have a good night)
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
One thing that i gleaned from your last posts is that you seem to have rejected the possibility of the existence of God on emotional grounds, namely your emotional reactions to christian teachings. Feelings are not a test for truth. The test for truth i would say is... evidence that supports a hypothesis. There are many arguments to support the veracity of the bible. There are arguments that support the hypothesis of a world that is material and only material and thats it !! cont.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "One thing that i gleaned from your last posts is that you seem to have rejected the possibility of the existence of God on emotional grounds." You have read me all wrong. After my father died, I desperately wanted Heaven and an afterlife to be true. So it was emotional reactions that kept me believing for a while. It is evidence, or lack of, that has made me believe that most likely these are myths. This is a common stereotype of atheists (continued)
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
I don't think i have read you wrong. Here's why. Your statements about your feelings about God are negative based on your feelings about the theology of God. For example you turn God's attribute of Omniscience into something offensive. ie, "surveillance" You've twisted it into something it isn't... applied it to God, then rejected both. But the basis on which you reject it has no basis in reality. It is a distortion of the truth. You malign the character of God on emotional grounds
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "I don't think i have read you wrong." Yes, you have. Sorry, but you do not have a crystal ball into my heart. If I said you were just a Christian for emotional reasons, wouldn't you find that condescending? My critique of the Omniscient God claim is valid and inescapable, but it is not mine originally. I had stopped believing in God before I ever heard this particular criticism. This reminds me of the "mad at God" nonsense we atheists get accused of all the time.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Dan, if you are sincere and honest and have reflected on the subject, I think you will have to agree that you have not rejected christianity on the basis of the cogency of the christian arguments, having looked at them thoroughly and found them wanting rather on the basis that you don't like what you perceive is a God not worthy of your devotion. You can't say from your heart "God is good". If this isn't the case then present your passion free reasons for negating christianity pls.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "ou can't say from your heart "God is good". If this isn't the case then present your passion free reasons for negating christianity pls" Sure, no problem. I don't believe in God because there is absolutely no hard evidence for his existence. Not one shred. The God claim is a huge one--if it were anything else, we would be demanding hard evidence. I've tried to point this out. The things you've tried to use as evidence would not hold up as evidence for any other claim.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody (cont). Every single atheist I've met online or in person, has arrived at their conclusions through a lot of thinking and examining of the evidence. Not a single one has gotten here through an emotional reaction--at least not that I've encountered. It is a stereotype, and an ugly one, that we are just "mad at God".
DandAinTac 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac
RE***Every single atheist I've met online or in person, has arrived at their conclusions through a lot of thinking and examining of the evidence. Not a single one has gotten here through an emotional reaction--at least not that I've encountered. It is a stereotype, and an ugly one, that we are just "mad at God".***
Ok. Great! will you kindly care to share that evidence?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "will you kindly care to share that evidence?" My evidence for God's nonexistence is your inability to produce such evidence. Even after thousands of years, no one has ever been able to prove a God. Anything you point to as "evidence" can be used as evidence for every other religion--existence, "why are we here", "how do you explain____," and so on. Yet each of these arguments are not evidence at all, just questions.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
So, the sane, reasonable man/women must, i believe, proceed by examining the arguments. That is what i am trying to do. Examine the arguments and see which is the sensible conclusion. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point? Anything less than this is radical fedeism, navigating in fog without a radar. I don't know how extensively or seriously you have looked at the arguments for the existence of the christian God but they exist and are, I think , reasonably sound. cont.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesongtowoody "I don't know how extensively or seriously you have looked at the arguments for the existence of the christian God but they exist and are, I think , reasonably sound. " I've read them all--the moral argument, the argument from existence, all of them. Not one of them has held up when scrutinized the way we would anything else. When you have an argument you think works, substitute "God" for Apollo or some other God, and see how well the argument works.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Are those arguments and there conclusion debatable? Honestly?...someday's they seem irrefutable and other days i become skeptical. Arguments and there conclusions are subject to "poor logic" and emotional bias's. (for both sides) With this said , i'm not convinced science can explain the origin of the universe apart from an intelligent self aware being who has eternal being within himself and brought about a material world by the means of his power.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "i'm not convinced science can explain the origin of the universe apart from an intelligent self aware being" Watch some lectures by people like Lawrence Krauss. It's quite possible that within our lifetime, scientists will figure out how and why the Big Bang happened. At that point, God will be unemployed. At one time, we couldn't even explain the sun without invoking a God. People were convinced we could not explain it otherwise.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Scientist's and you! (smile) ...think..they have explained the sun. But have you/they? Sure, you've labeled it, partially explained how it came about but not completely. Do you think science has explained the sun? I'd say, yes AND NO. Why does the sun bring pleasure? Why does it seem to perfectly suit our planet? Was its placement, its qualities designed or fluke? No! science has not eliminated the need for God as an explanation for MANY things we observe.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "Do you think science has explained the sun?" You're saying you don't? Everything you say in this post can indeed be explained by science. Also, it does not "perfectly suit our planet". Life has evolved and adapted to the temperature of the sun. Billions of years ago, it was less warm. We have no idea how common life is in the universe, so there could be billions of other stars suitable for life for all we know.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac Firstly, i suspend judgment as to whether macro evolution occurred at all (but that's a different discussion)
However...
RE***Life has evolved and adapted to the temperature of the sun. **** and that is why ....as i said "it perfectly suits our planet" For you , one complimenting the other is ultimately an accident. Not that the process's are an accident but the fact that the conditions that acted as a womb for it to occur are an accident. No, it is intentional.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"science has not eliminated the need for God as an explanation for MANY things we observe." It's quite possible that within our lifetimes, we may know how the "Big Bang" happened, and what was before (if that part even makes sense). We may also, in our lifetimes, figure out exactly how life began on the Earth, and demonstrate it in the lab. At that point, we will have an unemployed God. God is not needed to explain anything.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
(just quickly, heaven will be a renewed self sustaining, world, devoid of evil, full of justice and no lack, with God the creator accessible to all. It will be a physical dwelling place with relationships at its heart. Also, God seeing all should not be attached with such phrases as "surveillance" Do parents have their kids under surveillance? God isnt spying as much as watching over what we do...good and bad...and thats his prerogative, i think. He saw Hitlers acts for example.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy. The all-knowing, all-powerful God by definition, eliminates any notion of privacy or freedom. I think there's a strong juvenile impulse in us that wants someone to watch over us and take care of us--leftover from our childhood. If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. Especially since Hitler was a professed Catholic, and had a treaty with the Vatican.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
re ***But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy*** Yes, if its the government or a stranger But God is not a pervert, he is as christianity claims, Holy. You make a unnecessary connection that God's omniscience necessarily must equal evil and perverted abuse. God is Good not evil. Also, If God is in fact the Author he has by nature the rights to AUTHORITY. Only God is quintessentially sovereign not us!
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "as christianity claims, Holy." How do you know all this? Just because the Bible said so? This is your only source for all this--that, and because you were raised that way, and your pastor tells you this. Just stop for a minute and think about the logical problems I've pointed out, and consider for once, that it's just what it appears to be--an ancient collection of myths and stories, with no greater validity than the "holy" books of any other religion.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE**How do you know all this..Just because the Bible said so?*** Yes, that is why. After the supremacy, content, internal testimony, internal cohesiveness, motives, etc, etc of the bible is scrutinized tested and found to have a reasonably high degree of validity, it becomes an authority or standard for truth but not before. This is linear, not circular. Apply the same test to elves, the flying spagetti monster or atheist cosmology and you find it wanting to a higher degree. imho
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
re ***But we are not children. We are adults, and if anyone watches over us, that's authoritarian, and creepy*** Well according to christianity we are in fact "children" by the NATURE of our RELATIONSHIP to God. That is he "fathered/mothered" us therefore we are his "children" Remember you can be 21 and you are by definition still someones child. You are an adult "child". A creatures relationship to its creator is a father/child relationship by nature and it need not be "creepy".
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "according to christianity we are in fact "children"" This is a big problem with the monotheistic religions--the permanent sense of childishness it imposes on its followers. It is disempowering, and a form of learned helplessness. I think there's a reason for it. Children are not supposed to question authority figures, and just do what they're told. There's a reason why Catholics and many other religions refer to the senior clergy as "father". Think about this some.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***the permanent sense of childishness it imposes on its followers. It is disempowering, and a form of learned helplessness.****While i don't doubt that this goes on it is not biblical. This can occur in management, work, the home, corporations. It is to varying degrees part of the human condition. Abuse of authority is not biblical. Freedom to think for yourself is a christian virtue. While we should respect those in authority they should be humble enough to allow questions.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
Respond to this video...
Christians are called to put away childish things and cultivate character, virtue and to become responsible adults. Nietzsche was biased when he said theists believe in a loving heavenly father because they refuse to grow up. I don't agree that christians should be non thinking, wimpy believers and neither does god rather its antithesis.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE**If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. Especially since Hitler was a professed Catholic, and had a treaty with the Vatican.***
My point was to give God's omniscience a defense and to try and save it from your perspective on it. Since God "knows" of hitler's acts he can judge them accordingly. If he did not have this attribute how can justice be served? Therefore God's omniscience is a good thing not a bad thing.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him. **** According to Christianity, God has the power to act immediately but the sovereignty to not act if he so chooses, since the world has been spiraled into a cursed creation. According to the bible, justice will be meted out eventually and ultimately in the final judgment. So, no one can really say,ultimately... "God is unjust!" By the way, weren't hitler's acts part of the unguided mechanism of "natural selection"? Adult?
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "ustice will be meted out eventually and ultimately in the final judgment." This is an excuse Christians invented to excuse and explain the God character's lack of action and apparent indifference to human suffering. I don't buy it for one second. The problem of evil has never been dealt with convincingly by any Christian apologists. "God will make up for all this! We promise!" Sounds like an abuser who beats his wife and then promises to make it up to her. LAME.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***This is an excuse Christians invented to excuse and explain God character's and lack of action and apparent indifference to human suffering*** You said it...APPARENT! indifference. The idea that punishment is postponed is old and not a novel contemporary concept. It is as old as christs revelation of it and the new testament revelation of it which was written 1,950 years ago. Basically postponed punishment is a PROPHECY for how justice will be eventually meted out. cont...
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
so...if God postpones justice there is a sense in which that expresses itself as mercy. Tac, don't ask God for justice, you just might get it. Remember the biblical paradigm is that no one is Good. Therefore in the final analysis no one who is quintessentially good ever experiences calamity only guilty evil people, therefore God cannot be maligned if evil people suffer evil. The bible is God's revelation. It indicates that God is sifting humanity through history....cont.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
...he is separating those who will inherit salvation from those who won't. History is HIS STORY. Also, there are recorded moments, many instances where God does in fact punish evil immediately, so it does show that he is in fact not indifferent but he must be operating by some plan and purpose. The only truly innocent person who EVER suffered GENUINE injustice (to make a transaction), was Jesus Christ who was light but was murdered by the dark people of this world.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***The problem of evil....*** Here is another evidence for me (for the christian faith). It is difficult to argue and maintain from a philosophical perspective that evil acts are arbitrary or just a fiction. Evil acts seem to me to be real things. If they are a fiction then i can gun down people in a subway and nobody should argue that that is objectively wrong. Evolution makes evil arbitrary , God makes it objectively wrong. This rings truer, so evidence points to theism.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Tac, I just saw some american preachers on you tube and i think God is just as disgusted as I am about it. I can see how so many would be turned off to God because of all the abuses done in his name. I hate that "God and america" talk, forgive me, it makes me cringe. I believe in a brand of christian faith that displays the kind of humility , more of the likes of say... "billy graham" attitude. fwiw.
Sincerely,
John
Vancouver, Canada
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody your prior comments debunk your claim.
gethsoftware 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"hitler's acts part of the unguided mechanism of "natural selection"?" Heck no. Hitler believed he was doing the work of God. I'll point you to the appropriate passages in Mein Kampf if you need evidence.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Also, Re ***If God saw Hitler's acts, he should have stopped him*** Perhaps God didn't because things that don't exist can't act? It's also reasonable that God did observe all that but will mete out justice at a future date as the scriptures testify?We might prefer that he act immediately but perhaps he has his reason's and his plans.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
"heaven" will be with this earth. I don't know if you new that. No, it is not God with a long beard and we will play harps and float on clouds. Rather it is people resurrected with PHYSICAL bodies and living on this renewed earth. Nothing will be subject to the second law of thermodynamics, ie, nothing runs down or is subject to decay. I would like to go do some sailing when i get to heaven or maybe go hiking with my resurrected father? I could maybe get used to that. (i'm not JW)
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesongtowoody ""heaven" will be with this earth." In this post, you are making a lot of assertions for which you have no evidence whatsoever--not even biblical evidence.
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
After examining both atheistic and theistic arguments, I find some problems in both camps. So i don't think i could ever become a full blown atheist. Why because both sides use very complicated/sophisticated arguments to support their conclusions and with this sophistication its easy to make errors. As a response to this difficulty people accept the conclusions they prefer based on a host of reasons. Some good and some bad. Some reject Christianity on straw men arguments they setup
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
Ps. (you changed the topic of debate with this last post) (which is fine but ultimately if we are going to communicate and progress i think it detrimental since we will just jump from subject to subject without going deeper into the material of the discussion)(ps,...atheism like theism is based upon arguments and observing nature...both have some reasonable arguments worth considering)(...so my Christianity is based on a certain degree of evidence not "just faith")
thesongtowoody 3 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DandAinTac
RE***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence. This is so important to the Christian religion, that all else is forgiven if you just believe.***
1. Yes, because merits of christ's sacrifice and righteousness are laid to account of the debtor when he believes. This is necessary and vital because of the vast gap between our practical righteousness and God's uncompromising high moral standards.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
re ***You are right. FAITH, and only faith, is what gets you into Heaven. Faith of course, is belief without evidence.***
I define faith as "trust in the preponderance of the evidence so as to make adherence a wise choice" I am not a radical fideist which would be "faith without evidence". No, I am an evidentialist actually. I exercise faith based upon the case and the best evidence available. So that brand of faith cant be applied to me, maybe others but not me.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago
@thesongtowoody "I define faith as" You are making up your own definition here. Faith means believing in something without evidence. If you are believing in something based on evidence, that can be reliably tested, and is framed in a way that can be disproven, then what you have is "science", not "faith". If you have evidence in your "faith", you still have not shared it. All you have are questions and assertions based largely on ignorance and wishful thinking. I know it sounds rough, but...
DandAinTac 2 months ago
@DandAinTac
RE***Faith means believing in something without evidence**** It can mean that but it doesn't have to mean that in every case. Their are different kinds of "faith". There are 3 categories. Radical fedeists, moderate fedeists and evidentialists. The 1st believe with zero evidence(not necessary), 2nd with some(sufficient enough for them), 3 because of evidence(proven). All i'm saying is...i have reasons(logic) to exercise trust.(faith)ie i believe because its reasonable to do so.
thesongtowoody 2 months ago